Danny's Weblog

Excellent summary for reasons why US Administration would fake 9/11

The article includes a great deal of well-attributed evidence for the argument that the USA was already planning to invade Afghanistan and Iraq long before 9/11, and that Rumsfeld and his buddies – you know, the whole "Project for a New American Century" thing – had specifically talked about a "New Pearl Harbor" as the opportunity to implement those plans.

www.globalresearch.ca [http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20051202&articleId=1391]

My own take on this is that the real players – the people we never see, unlike Rumsfeld – are playing a multiplex game. In order to attract Rumsfeld and big-money backers, the invasions were depicted as merely a cynical attempt to expand the US military and weaken Arabia. Rumsfeld may even still believe this.

But that's just one skin of the onion. If you had been trying to fight a war effectively, you would have let the experts handle things like low-intensity-conflict planning and the handling of suspects. Instead, I can only conclude that everything possible was done to shove a pointed stick in the eye of the Arab/Moslem public. We always knew that torturing suspects was not just ineffective, but counter-productive; worse (in my view) would be the corruption of the military. Remember, street cops were pulled off drug enforcement because practically all of them were corrupted, so vice departments were created so that only one branch of the police would be utterly corrupt. But the knowledge that one part of the army is torturing suspects destroys the morale of every soldier.

Likewise, the US Army was provisioned and set up in a way which surely was deliberately planned to maximize casualties and ensure that the Iraqi resistance would grow.

Still, the article makes it hard to continue to believe the *outer* skin of the onion.

Debug: hittotal: 25 startban: 1 dancookie: endbandate: 2008-12-05 banned: 0 tempdate: 2008-12-03 tert: jse: jsno jsh: 25